OT: University of Chicago letter on free speech to incoming freshmen
- Thread starter mdk01
- Start date
Not at Princeton
Princeton orders staff to stop using the term 'man' as part of a ban on 'gendered words' to make college more inclusive
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...an-gendered-words-make-college-inclusive.html
I had to look it up.
"
noun
- a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).
"there probably should be a trigger warning for people dealing with grief"
Was probably all the hookers and blow you were consuming. Gotta watch that w/the missus.
They're not going to give up the power they had without a fight. Until recently, when could 400 students think they had the right to force a college president to resign?
In the 60s, students protested quite a lot - probably more than today. Although without stats that probably weren't and still aren't gathered, it'd be hard to be certain of that.
One difference is that I think they weren't so much looking to force someone to resign back then as to just force a policy change. We probably have the media (all of it, not one side or the other) to thank for people today having such overblown expectations. Manufactured outrage is a big business for the media these days, along with manufactured fear.
Most of these kids today are soft. And that's an understatement.
Safe spaces....what a joke. No sympathy for these entitled, coddled people.
Safe spaces....what a joke. No sympathy for these entitled, coddled people.
Key difference, those protests almost all had some relation to Vietnam. Rarely, if ever, was it about disinviting a speaker. And the protesters would have scoffed at the idea of safe spaces. They were out to DENY safe spaces.
From an editorial in today's WSJ:
"Maybe Chicago's example will inspire spinal infusions at the likes of Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and even the timorous souls at Yale."
"Maybe Chicago's example will inspire spinal infusions at the likes of Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and even the timorous souls at Yale."
Vietnam, civil rights and women's rights all had notable protests. And I didn't say anything about safe spaces. I very much like what the letter says, which should be obvious reading what I posted earlier in this thread.
Not accusing you of that, just noting the difference. And actually, civil rights demonstrations rarely occurred on campus. College students were undoubted significantly involved, but usually off campus. Woman's rights was more 70's, when I was on a campus, and had a very different tone.
This is true. But women could afford to have a softer tone because it was always a forgone conclusion that men were ultimately going to come around anyway. Because women have the... the... well you know.
Everything goes in circles. Just like that South Park ep where the old men were standing around saying "well, I guess PC is back again"
Reason, rationality and facts will always win out in the end.
More schools will be banning safe spaces and protecting free speech and ideas in the future.. aka going back to normal again.
Reason, rationality and facts will always win out in the end.
More schools will be banning safe spaces and protecting free speech and ideas in the future.. aka going back to normal again.
Last edited:
Rutgers has no spine. The liberal twits changed my alma mater. Such crap.
I would think a place like the U of C doesn't have the political pressure Rutgers faces daily. I'd think they have the ability to tell everyone to bug off if you don't like it. In my mind a place like Yale or Princeton would be a better comparison.
Yale and Princeton sold their souls to the PC police and SJW and the extreme left. They might be the last ones to get back to normal.
Rutgers has to appeal to as many people as possible but they let anyone speak even if it means that SJW idiots start pouring fake blood all over themselves to celebrate their periods or something. I am not sure what that was about.
I would have 400+ prefilled disenrollment request forms available for those students. Plenty of smart kids tripping over themselves to get accepted by UC.
They face different constituencies, but both face pressures. During and after "Duke Lacrosse" a number of Duke alumni responded to the annual giving soliciting with checks for 88 cents, representing the 88 faculty members who had participated in the witch hunt ad that appeared in Durham papers. I can't say it moved Duke over to the U Chicago position, but it sent a message.
Love the top definition of SJW in the urban dictionary.
Yup, I had to look it up.
The letter is functionally meaningless but probably effective in its intended purpose as a marketing ploy.
I don't see why you say the letter (I assume you mean the U of C's announcement) is "functionally meaningless." It sends a clear message; don't bother complaining if your professor isn't "sensitive" enough for you or if there's a speaker you don't like. That's pretty powerful.
It is functionally meaningless. Let's look at the two primary issues. Trigger warnings and speakers
Trigger warnings. It is not the policy of any institution writ large to standardize trigger warnings. Individual professors have used them. They are rare and an exercise in freedom of the academic and do not infringe on the freedom of others. Yes they are fun to laugh at but they are a harmless artifact that outside of caricatures of left wing academia are completely insignificant. Saying that you don't endorse them is both moot, and in no way stifles a professor at the institution from offering them in their class. So the statement has no practical implication yet advertises an attitude that is embraced by some outsiders who don't like trigger warnings yet have likely never experienced them in an academic setting.
Speakers. Institutions reject speakers all the time. They usually do so by not inviting people that they know would be rejected by their core constituencies. In the rare instance that a speaker is rejected it is usually the case that the speaker actually speaks and is protested or the speaker voluntarily rejects the offer. (That is right. Half this board thinks this statement contradicts what Rutgers did but Rutgers didn't do anything. The fact is that Rice rejected the offer. This policy would have zero effect on that situation) There are a scant few cases where a speaker has had their invite pulled by the university. So in the letter they are saying that they won't do something that is incredibly rare and unlikely to happen. And it must be acknowledged that any protests are valid because they of course will be protected by the fact that our constitution trumps the university policy.
So in the end this is cute signaling of values but is much a do about nothing. It is the equivalent of beating up the strawman of yourself. University of Chicago released a symbolic letter against issues that in practicality are perceived in much greater preponderance of any actual evidence.
What you're missing is that while the letter, IMHO, in no way would prohibit a professor from giving trigger warnings it, more importantly, indicates that professors would not be compelled to give them.
With regard to speakers, what I think you're missing, at least in my reading, is that disruption of speeches on campus will no longer be tolerated.
As an alum of both Princeton (bachelors) and Chicago (doctorate), I'm pleased with both statements. Free speech isn't really free speech unless it includes speech you don't agree with. And taking the masculine form out of terms that don't need it is a good idea in general. Firefighter is fine in comparison to fireman. Server instead of waitress. That is what the Princeton directive is about. In a school not all that far removed from being single sex (my freshman errrr, first year, there was the last year of an all male Princeton). Sometimes trying to be gender neutral gets clunky, but it's worth the effort, especially in job ads and the like.
Yes, professors are free to offer trigger warnings. But they don't have to under this policy, and that's important. And as for speakers, you contradict yourself by saying that rejected speakers actually speak. What U of C is saying is, "don't bother complaining to us about a speaker [say, one who is invited by a conservative student group)." That's important, too.
So what about not requiring trigger warnings? Where does any school require them. They aren't refectory a policy that anyone has instituted. Declaring that you won't do something that no one does is the opposite of important.
And I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that schools aren't pulling offers to speak. The two common results. 1 speakers speak and are protested 2 speakers decide not to speak on their own ate unaffected by the policy. It wouldn't have changed what happened with Rice. Can anyone even find 10 examples of the university pulling an offer in the last 5 years?
No school requires trigger warnings, but at most schools, a professor who refuses to give one can't be assured of the backing of his/her administration. That's not true of U.C. To your point about speakers -- if the University had said "we have a policy of not cancelling speakers because of their beliefs and we're not going to cancel Rice," the result might well have been different.
Would it? I hope you are clear on the fact the Rutgers didn't pull the offer. Rice declined.
And why wouldn't a professor have the backing of an al administration for not installing a policy that isn't one? Can you find examples of this? It sounds absurd.
I applaud U of C for this approach. I have two degrees from Rutgers, a B.A. in history and political science along with my law degree. I took seven years off before earning my law degree at night in 2015 and in that time, it's amazing seeing how the mindset of students has changed, whether it be unintelligibly arguing certain policies or simply not having the maturity to understand people will say things they disagree with (but some others do agree with). You're not going to be happy with everything you hear.
I also note, I can't think of a school which doesn't give you some idea of the items you will expereicen in class which you (freely) register for. Even at Rutgers, few courses are required (Expos being one off the top of my head) and the others are various courses in wide ranges of academia if one if pursing a liberal arts degree (I doubt you needed a trigger warning for Astronomy 102 but if you are scared about how the Sun will expand in 4 billion or so years and destroy what life remains on Earth, well I'll just shake my head). Besides that, you also receive a syllabus the first day of classes (or before) and if you review it and so vehemently disagree with something which will occur in class, there is a reason there is an add/drop period.
I'll leave you all with this great bit by Triumph, the Comic Insult Dog, as he tries to speak to students at UNH before one of the primary debates earlier this year:
I also note, I can't think of a school which doesn't give you some idea of the items you will expereicen in class which you (freely) register for. Even at Rutgers, few courses are required (Expos being one off the top of my head) and the others are various courses in wide ranges of academia if one if pursing a liberal arts degree (I doubt you needed a trigger warning for Astronomy 102 but if you are scared about how the Sun will expand in 4 billion or so years and destroy what life remains on Earth, well I'll just shake my head). Besides that, you also receive a syllabus the first day of classes (or before) and if you review it and so vehemently disagree with something which will occur in class, there is a reason there is an add/drop period.
I'll leave you all with this great bit by Triumph, the Comic Insult Dog, as he tries to speak to students at UNH before one of the primary debates earlier this year:
Of course I know that Rutgers didn't pull the offer. But it might (and I emphasize might) have made a difference if Rutgers had shown more determination than it did.
As for your second paragraph, it is incomprehensible. I've now tried three times to explain this as simply as I can. If you want more explanation, you'll have to pay law school tuition. :)
But Rutgers did exactly that. Barchi even sent a formal letter to the Rutgers community confirming that the University would not disinvite Rice, in which he wrote:
"We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity."
http://president.rutgers.edu/public-remarks/letters/regarding-commencement-speaker-condoleezza-rice
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Just ran across Michael Moore by the Lincoln center...nasty pile of dung. I bet RU would have no problems with the loser speaking on campus and neither would I but then again I believe schools should invite ANYONE that is thought-provoking, nauseating though they may be!
Oh, rest easy..he was NOT wearing an RU hat!
Oh, rest easy..he was NOT wearing an RU hat!
Similar threads
